Rule of Evidence 702: The Supreme Court Provides a Framework for Reliability Determinations

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore the Kumho Tire decision and the implications that this trilogy of cases will have on the admissibility of nonscientific expert testimony. The article first discusses the historical development of methods used to evaluate the reliability of expert tesimony. The article next comments on the impact that the federal and military rules of evidence have had on the reliability determination. This section also addresses the impact of Daubert and unresolved questions after Daubert. After discussing Daubert and the associated problems, the article analyzes Joiner and Kumho Tire and explains how the Supreme Court resolved these problems. The article concludes by discussing how these cases will impact the admissibility of expert testimony in the future. Specifically, this section provides advice to practitioners and judges on how to litigate the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony under the Supreme Court's framework.